I’m designing from the content out. Meaning that I designed the middle of the page (the part you read) first. Because that’s what this site is about.

When I was satisfied that it was not only readable but actually encouraged reading, I brought in colors and started working on the footer. (The colors, I need not point out to longtime visitors, hearken back to the zeldman.com brand as it was in the 1990s.)

The footer, I reckoned, was the right place for my literary and software products.

I designed the grid in my head, verified it on sketch paper, and laid out the footer bits in Photoshop just to make sure they fit and looked right. Essentially, though, this is a design process that takes place outside Photoshop. That is, it starts in my head, gets interpreted via CSS, viewed in a browser, and tweaked.

Do not interpret this as me dumping on Photoshop. I love Photoshop and could not live or work without it. But especially for a simple site focused on reading, I find it quicker and easier to tweak font settings in code than to laboriously render pages in Photoshop.

If you view source, I haven’t optimized the CSS. (There’s no sense in doing so yet, as I still have to design the top of the page.)

I thought about waiting till I was finished before showing anything. That, after all, is what any sensible designer would do. But this site has a long history of redesigning in public, and the current design has been with us at least four years too long. Since I can’t snap my fingers and change it, sharing is the next best thing.

Do not interpret this as me dumping on Photoshop. I love Photoshop and could not live or work without it. But especially for a simple site focused on reading, I find it quicker and easier to tweak font settings in code than to laboriously render pages in Photoshop.

You and me both. Most of my intensive design work is now going through Firebug. I build a wireframe in Dreamweaver and then tweak and knob-twist in Firebug. Last major project required comps (and thus Photoshop), but lately I don’t even comp. It’s just much easier for me to build out in HTML and then swap out the CSS if a design isn’t going anywhere.

I like the new design, but that background orange… it’s very strong. I’m not sure if you want me to buy DWWS 1st edition or a Costco-sized container of Sunny Delight.

It’s nice to see your brand back in action. I always felt that sites with “pedigree” should be like cars (the good ones) – how you can always tell the make regardless of how much the lines have changed throughout the years.

I like that you are bringing back the red-orange. When I first started reading your web site long ago, Zeldman and orange became synonymous in my mind. Best of luck with the rest of the re-design. I look forward to seeing it.

I loved the return of classic Zeldman orange–it’s both nostalgic and awesome. But I have to agree with the point raised by the folks for whom the color provides not memories but distraction. In the absence of a prior emotional connection, the intense background does not enhance the content. (Brand, most definitely. But not content.)

Generally I think it looks excellent – although I must say that that red/orange makes it a bit of a headache to read (even if you could just lose the background).
I think you’ve put all that time and thought into making the content nice and easy to read then surrounding it with a bright bold distracting colour kinda defeats all that effort.

Sadly, if it stays like that, I’ll be readiing your posts in Google reader (or quickly editing CSS to kill that background colour).

I don’t have any issue with the background color… au contraire: i think it adds to readability, rather than detract to it. It makes the content stand out more. And more. And more. I find it to be (ahem) exciting and stimulating (!).

My suggestions would be that you lose the black borders around your content layout. The content’s white background and the orange of the page’s background already creates a nice contrast. This would also simplify things and push a more contemporary vibe.

I know Happy Cog are obsessed with Georgia, but I’d rate lose it to Verdana or some other sans-serif alternative. I’ve you’re going for something modern, I think it’s such a clash to use such a “old book” style font. Especially since, Verdana is very readable.

Glad your new WIP has more padding, I would think it would be nice to incorporate that same spacing in the fat footer as well.

Amen to all the eeks about the orange background, I’m afraid – and readability guidelines suggest not using all-caps. But apart from that, excellent! It’s a big improvement in cleanness, clarity and readability on the current site. I also have no problem with Georgia, though it does tend to look borderline excremental on a cheap PC – or indeed anywhere outside Safari/Konqueror.

I’ve been very interested in typography, a web topic that continues to gain momentum, and debate. Between pixels, ems, percents, keywords, and points, each has its own following of developers who swear by their particular choice of font sizing. I noticed in your CSS there seems to be a combination of all (except points). Any rhyme or reason? I’ve been tempted to use strictly ems but with modern browsers switching to page zooming rather than text resizing and IE6 on its way out, I’m not so sure leaving pixels is still worth it.

The footer and content are beautifully done. I’m looking forward to the header. I like the not white background of the content in contrast with the strong orange. It’s easier to read than your 2003 design.

I notice that in 2003 the font size was 11px, the current design uses 13px and the new design is using 15px. As someone in his 50’s I appreciate the larger font size.

I know it’s not done but the bottom of your drop cap is cut off in IE 7 on Win XP Pro. I suppose it could be a stylistic choice but looking at the code it doesn’t seem like it to me. I’m not the greatest with CSS though so I could be wrong.